September 8, 2010

"We must pray..." for the brilliant comic actor Glenn Shadix, who gave the hilarious funeral sermon in "Heathers" (and played the interior decorator in "Beetlejuice"), and who has died now, at the age of 58.

... Faced with estrangement from those I loved, I decided to put my fate in the hands of the Birmingham Alabama Psychiatric Community and see if I could rewire myself into something resembling a heterosexual.

... This therapy consisted of male and female pornography and electrodes attached to a large car-size battery and then to me. I was told to look at the male pornography until I became aroused and then dear Dr. Hainey would turn up the juice as I stared at the male nudes and the muscles in my arm would begin to burn and contract. When the pain became intolerable (I was told not to be a sissy about it and to take as much pain as possible) I was then to turn my head and when I looked back the male nude was replaced by a female nude and Dr. Hainey would shut off his little current of torture....

153 comments:

Having been on both side of the step-parent thing, I can tell you that trusting the step-kid's version of things is extremely problematic.

Step-kids don't want their natural parent to move on and create a new life.

I've been widowed twice, so I've been through it all with my daughters and with my girlfriend's kid.

Step-kids version of events may or may not have some validity. Step-kids love to paint the step-parent as some kind of monster. And, given half a chance the step-kid will drive his or her step-parent half insane precisely to prove what a monster the step-parent is.

So, this entire story should be taken with a grain of salt.

Homosexuality may be of no particular relevance to the step-father. I've seen step-kids get all in a lather about supposed homophobia from a step-parent. These stories are not necessarily to be believed. Often, they are trumped up just to impugn the step-parent.

He is at peace now. The psychiatric community is not to be trusted with decisions. They are baby sitters only. They can zonk a man's brain with drugs or remove his brain with electroshock. A man's soul needs more than these soul-ologists can even guess at. How did Joe Kennedy's daughter do with the advice of the best and the brightest in the field?

shoutingthomas, for some reason the early Brady Bunch scene wherein Carol tells Cindy that the only steps in this house are right there (pointing to their fabulous open-air staircase) pops into my mind.

If you click through to the end of the story, you'll see that the step-dad and Shadix come to terms with each other. I think the early conflict is more rooted in Shadix being a teenager and therefore knowing everything than anything else.

I'm of two minds about this sort of psychiatric treatment plan. I know that it is not likely to work, and it does sound cruel. But, on the other hand, if a person wants to take the risk of some fruitless discomfort, if they want to change what is a pretty important aspect of their life (for whatever personal reasons they may have), why should we not, as a free society, let them freely take that risk? (Assuming, of course, truth in advertising about the likelihood of success)

But the theory behind the treatment is a Skinnerian viewpoint, which was much in vogue back in the day.

Skinnerian behavior studies led directly to video gaming industry which, these days, grosses more cash than the movie industry. Once you read over Skinners tests and compared that to what goes on inside your average MMO, my desire to blow people up online declined by a substantial margin.

A while back, on another thread, I was told by a hard right winger that violence is simply *the* answer. If you want to change society - violence is the way to do it - is what I was told. No one from the hard right disagreed.

I would suggest that it is indeed true that the hard right is extremely positve about war, violence, cruelty, punitive measures, hatred, condemnation etc.

Please direct me to threads where those on the hard right are advocating for kindness, forgiveness, love, joy, peace, graciousness, respect of those who disagree - anything along those lines...

A while back, on another thread, I was told by a hard right winger that violence is simply *the* answer. If you want to change society - violence is the way to do it - is what I was told. No one from the hard right disagreed.

I would suggest that it is indeed true that the hard right is extremely positve about war, violence, cruelty, punitive measures, hatred, condemnation etc.

Is that satire?

Please direct me to threads where those on the hard right are advocating for kindness, forgiveness, love, joy, peace, graciousness, respect of those who disagree - anything along those lines...

They abound on this blog. Go find them yourself or hang out here more. I notice that it's the hard left protests that tend to involved hospital visits and multiple millions in property damage.

It's quite possible you're from bizarro world though, where everything you said makes sense.

Talk about a bizarro world! I remember you from the gay marriage threads, ScottM. As threads come up about war, cruelty, hatred, violence, punitive measures etc. - I will note your response or lack thereof, as well as how your comrades, predictably, will respond favorably to calls for hatred, war, condemnation and cruelty to others.

I notice you didn't even direct me to one thread where the extreme right is advocating for kindess or love or compassion. Not even one. That tells me a lot.

Talk about a bizarro world! I remember you from the gay marriage threads, ScottM. As threads come up about war, cruelty, hatred, violence, punitive measures etc. - I will note your response or lack thereof, as well as how your comrades, predictably, will respond favorably to calls for hatred, war, condemnation and cruelty to others.

Oh...so my asking for understanding, kindness, etc for the polygamists doesn't rise to your arbitrary standard? That's very telling. I don't know what it tells, but it's certainly as valid as my not doing your work for you and providing links for your convenience. I'm pretty sure I told you to go find them...they're there.

I respond to what I choose to respond to. If it's interesting and I have something I believe to be either a worthy addition, or simply funny, I'll post it.

I would further point out that advocating kindness, love, compassion, et al, is part and parcel with the more religious types hereabouts, but I'd wager your stereotypical southern Baptist preacher character idea of what a Christian is doesn't have any room for that.

While we're at it, I suppose you realize that a good, healthy chunk of the "revolutionaries" on the hard left were a pretty violent, bigoted group, don't you? Or do you think someone like Che was a right-winger?

Skinnerian behavior studies led directly to video gaming industry which, these days, grosses more cash than the movie industry. Once you read over Skinners tests and compared that to what goes on inside your average MMO, my desire to blow people up online declined by a substantial margin.

@Scott

Do you have a link to something that makes this comparison/evaluation. As a lifetime game and participant in MMORPGS I would be interested. Or...maybe I don't want to know ;-)

Sunsong, context matters. In certain contexts, such as defending against aggression, violence is often the answer, even to the point of war. See Nazism, communism, etc. (Though I can't think of a context where outright cruelty is an answer to anything. Where did you get "cruelty?")

That has absolutely nothing to do with an issue like this where violence and cruelty would be so obviously wrong.

While we're at it, I suppose you realize that a good, healthy chunk of the "revolutionaries" on the hard left were a pretty violent, bigoted group, don't you? Or do you think someone like Che was a right-winger?

I'm not advocating for the hard left, ScottM. But, then, why would you want to be accurate, eh?

I consistently criticize the hard left and the hard right. The extremes are both stupid.

What I'm pointing out is that the hard right - here - (check out the link from a few days ago) celebrate war, punitive measures, hatred and violence. Next time there is a thread on the subject - I challenge you to comment and let's see who is honestly advocating what. If I'm wrong - I'll admit it. Will you?

Sunsong is being deliberately obtuse. He was "once told by a hard rightwinger". How do we know he's a hard rightwinger? Because he advocated violence? Which Sunsong goes on to say proves that hard rightwingers believe advocate violence. Using similar circular logic, he then went on to prove black equals white and then got run over at the next zebra crossing.

Even finding one "hard rightwinger" that advocates violence as a solution to anything doesn't actually prove anything about rightwingers or rightwing thought. It may just prove that one person is a nut. Second, it doesn't define what are the qualities that define a hard rightwinger to begin with? All Sunsong does is call a bunch of things he doesn't like "rightwing" and then attempts to use it as a brush to tar people who self identify by a similar term.

I could call being attracted to monkeys "gay", but that doesn't make gay people attracted to monkeys.

Yes, there is a Utopian left. Their delusions are as dangerous as those of the Utopian right.

Utopia itself is a delusional concept if for no other reason than it is highly subjective. I wasn't aware there was a utopian right. You'll have to flesh that one out for me. Other than the very libertarian "Probability Broach", in which the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded, I'm not aware of anything that approaches "utopia".

The further you move to the right, the closer you get to anarchy. The closer you move to the left, the closer you get to totalitarianism. Extremes are never good unless your amp goes to 11.

Part of being accurate is asking questions for clarification. Since you're not advocating for either the hard left or the hard right, does that put you in some moderate paradise that we knuckle-draggers can only dream of between various activities involving either hitting someone or spitting at them?

shouting, read the article. He went to UAB to get shock treatment. (They still offer it.) What 18 or 19 yo does that? People hate homosexuality down here, and did so even more in 'those days.' It's just the reality.

Oh, now UAB is treating depression, in addition to the usual array of anti psychotics and anti depressants, with magnets.

Sunsong...You are out of your mind. The conservative right is not hard on anybody. War is never a good thing, but it can be the lesser of two evils to losing a war to a murderous ideology that plans to exterminate life. All true progress comes from a demand for more of something, which humans ibnvariably meet as a challenge unless they are seduced to sit back and wait on the Government. Progressive liars on the other hand pretend that redistribution of what there already is solves problems...it only kills the true challenge which is to produce more and more. Remember "Be fruitful and multiply". That is our job and our government and society needs to promote that if we want success.

Part of being accurate is asking questions for clarification. Since you're not advocating for either the hard left or the hard right, does that put you in some moderate paradise that we knuckle-draggers can only dream of between various activities involving either hitting someone or spitting at them?

I think I'm just repeating myself. I am pointing out that from the posts I have read here (and elsewhere) - this is how I perceive the hard right:

"This kind of cruelty is applauded by the hard right, is it not? Violence, war and cruelty improve society. Is that not the message of the hard right?"

shouting, read the article. He went to UAB to get shock treatment. (They still offer it.) What 18 or 19 yo does that? People hate homosexuality down here, and did so even more in 'those days.' It's just the reality.

Big wheels keep on turnin'Carryin' me home to see my kinSingin' songs about the southlandI miss Alabamy once again and I think its a sin ... yes

Well I heard Mister Young sing about herWell I heard ol' Neil put her downWell I hope Neil Young will rememberA Southern man don't need him around anyhow

Sweet home AlabamaWhere the skies are so blueSweet home AlabamaLord I'm comin' home to you

Great song.

You ought to see some of the crazies we've got in New York City and Woodstock.

Particularly, our self-styled "therapists." You want to see some carnage, go to one of Woodstock's cult therapists.

Or, just read up on the history of the Rajneeshees. They were very popular in Woodstock. Talk about having your head fucked with!

Thanks for the link. It didn't tell me anything that I didn't already know about gaming, game design or the manipulation of the players by the designers. I still like to play, but I can control my play. For instance I haven't participated for about 3 weeks.

However, I would like to get my Tier 10 set on my level 80 hunter and use some silencing shots on sunsong or maybe some misdirection so I can send all the aggro his way. :-D

Context matters for that. War and violence are certainly better for a civilization than appeasement, as victory is obviously going to a make a civilization more successful than defeat.

Fucking and fighting determine history.

That is true. History is, of course, going to be determined by which civilizations reproduce and which ones are victorious when in conflict. One may or may not find that desirable, but it is obviously true.

Neither of your quotes amount to advocating senseless violence as you seem to suggest.

Since you brought them up again, I'll bite. First, I have no idea what the context of that quote is, but it appears to be a statement of fact based on historical training of the speaker(writer). Frankly, it doesn't so much smack of a value judgment as it does an easily arguable statement of truth.

Birth-rates and demographics DO determine history. Europe is going to be directly affected by this in the next generation or so. Please dispute that.

Fighting, ie, war, is an indisputable determiner of history. There are winners and losers. The losers end up on the scrap heap. Or, maybe you didn't notice that the Confederate States Of America don't exist any more and neither do the Nazis, or a single Korean state. Please dispute the fact that war has nothing to do with history. Be as accurate as possible.

We disagree. That quote says to me exactly what it seems to that that poster believes "war is good" and the "violence is good for civilization".

There is no caveat there saying that war is a tragedy or expressing sorrow at the great loss and devastation that it brings. There is no expression of wishing tht it were not so. It is simply a bold statement in support of war and violence. That is how it reads to me.

You have added the word - senseless. What I have seen is more like the quote I provided. There have not been statements that killing and harming are regretable - and that war should only be undertaken if there are absolutely no other options.

No, it seesm to me that the hard right is almost knee-jerk in their wanting to use harsh measures.

Sunsong, you stated that we approved this particular kind of behavior. You were and are wrong. Changing what you stated to something totally different about war is immaterial and makes you look flighty.

Depends your point of view. If you're a member of the civilization beset by an aggressor that wants to end it or control it, and violence is the only thing that will stop that, violence and war may achieve self-preservation.

Not every situation can be settled by Ghandiesque techniques. In a woefully larger percentage of history, the weaker civilization was just wiped out or absorbed.

There is no caveat there saying that war is a tragedy or expressing sorrow at the great loss and devastation that it brings. There is no expression of wishing tht it were not so. It is simply a bold statement in support of war and violence. That is how it reads to me.

That's because you believe in a caricature version of the "hard right."

You find one quote, strip it of all context, read things into it that are not there, and declare that the "hard right" adores violence and hates kindness. That is extremely weak.

Indeed. And isn't it the case that the *point of view* of the hard right is that violence, hatred, condemnation and war are good? Even to the point of not trying anything else? Isn't it the case that the far right believes humnaity is basically wretched, by nature?

Take a look at how the far right posters talk - what they say - how they treat those who have *different* views. How long does it take until they are name-calling, shaming, condemning attacking?

And yes, the far left posters do the same? So what does that tell us? The extremes are stupid bullies as a rule, right?

You find one quote, strip it of all context, read things into it that are not there, and declare that the "hard right" adores violence and hates kindness. That is extremely weak.

I'm willing to be wrong. Let's test my theory over time. I won't forget your name. Let's notice future threads where the option for cruelty, punitive measures, violence and war etc are there and see what the far right posters advocate.

Let's notice future threads where the option for cruelty, punitive measures, violence and war etc are there and see what the far right posters advocate.

Extreme right or far right? In relation to whom? How far to the right of what arbitrary point are you going to zero in on. Even then, all of the posters that fall into that narrow band, just some, or one? If just some, what percentage?

It seems to me you've set yourself up for an annoyingly banal exercise merely to make you more comfortable in your own skin.

I would not grant that the further right one gets the more cynical and abhorrent one's opinion of human behavior gets. I would grant that is true the further you go to the left. If it were not true, why would the left want more and more control as you move that direction for any other reason than to control unwanted behavior?

You never did answer three simple questions that would have helped shed some light one what you view to be "hard right" to begin with.

Can I get one of those devices? Not because I want to mess around with my kids' sexual orientation, I just want them to clean their rooms.

A joke, okay. I am against water boarding. I do not even believe in corporal punishment. I guess I am a bad conservative, because I do not fit the left's preconceived notion of parenting from the right. For example, I was watching Glee with my daughter and they had the scene where the blond pregnant girl had to tell her parents. She was immediately disowned (and Dad was commenting how he wanted to watch Glenn Beck). Remember Glee is on Fox (I guess any publicity is good publicity).

I know plenty of conservative folks who are pro life, but not many who would disown their daughters for getting pregnant in high school. Angry? Sure. Disown? No. It happens, but it is not that common.

"How long does it take until they are name-calling, shaming, condemning attacking?"

Interestingly, it took this poster only a single comment to reach this stage, referring to the "hard right" as supporters of cruelty, violence, and war. One wonders why he doesn't turn his focus a little more inward, and perhaps adopt a slightly less sanctimonious tone.

Sunsong, These are loaded questions, but sure I'll bite. since they're designed to elicit a predetermined response. You've picked questions a "rightwinger" might theoretically believe a violent solution is necessary

Are you for or against the war on Afghanistan? And if you are, why?

Yes, I support our war effort in Afghanistan--my original support was for our effort to destroy the Taliban, I support our current effort to hold the gains we've made and solidify them against a resurgent enemy.

Are you for or against gay marriage, and if not why?

I'm neutral on gay marriage, and believe it is something that should be handled legislatively. I oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because I believe future generations should have the right to choose what they prefer.

Do you think war with Iran is a good idea. Why?

Probably, but not right now. I would prefer a solution is reached that doesn't require another invasion. But a nuclear armed, theocratic Iran is not something I consider an "optimal solution".

Do you think that punitive measures enhance society?

What kind of punitive measures? Yes, I do believe things like jail, and fines are necessary to encourage people to obey the law. I prefer laws to be as light as possible however.

Now, your questions were designed to elicit a predetermined response. You've picked questions a "rightwinger" might theoretically believe a violent solution is necessary. In fact, most non "rightwing" people consider jail and fines to be necessary. But lets consider another question. A lot of rightwingers don't like France. A lot of ink is spilled making jokes about France. But I would imagine "do you support invading France" to get a widespread negative response, even though we have legitimate differences with them.

Now let me pose you a question. Is there any situation in which you believe a violent response is justified, even necessary. And if you think there is even one, then don't you believe there are situations where people of goodwill might disagree about exactly where the line is?

A while back, on another thread, I was told by a hard right winger that violence is simply *the* answer

You know, for some questions, it might simply be; like "A man is raping your wife. What do you do?" To that question, I would say "You know, Sal, I think I would commit a pretty horrendous level of violence" is probably the best answer possible. To "The bakery sent the wrong cake to your 6 year old's birthday party", it's probably not.

If you are speaking from a strictly non-violent stance I think your attempt to place this on the political spectrum is misguided. I believe you can find examples of violence, war and cruelty world-wide from left and right. The activities you've cited are means of exercising power; power is without ideology.

And I'm sure you'll want to disqualify the most egregious of examples on the left (i.e. Stalin, Mao) as not being truly left. Which of course would prove my point that violence and war are means of exercizing power. Power is what all politicians/leaders/government seek regardless of ideology.

But if your "preconception" of what the hard right (whatever the hell that is)is REALLY about works for you, I'd say go for it.

But could I ask just one question so I understand your views:

What does being for or against gay marriage have to do with "Violence, war and cruelty"?

" How would you characterize the far right's view of humanity and human nature?"

I am not sure who you would characterize as the far right. I think you are likely referring to main stream conservatives who have frightening ideas that have been mischaraterized as "far right."

But conservatives, like the ones on this board, have a realistic view of human nature. That is why our policies tend to work, they are based in an accurate view of human nature.

Progressives such as yourself have a wonderful, cozy, and completely unrealistically positive view of human nature. Well, except for people who disagree with them. Then all bets are off! They will talk about you like a dog. Catchy phrase that.

Now, your questions were designed to elicit a predetermined response. You've picked questions a "rightwinger" might theoretically believe a violent solution is necessary.

That is my point. There are, in fact, situations in which the far right can almost be *predicted* to advocate violence, cruelty and punitive measures in. What is astounding here is how upset so many are at that reality. You, at least, came through - in the sense that yes, wou are *for* war with Afghnistan and Iran. Gays are to be voted on is simply bulying by the majority, imo. "let's vote on what rights those fags should have." as if it is up to you...

For those who believe that humanity is wretched and *fallen* and needs to be kept in line - harsh measures make sense - do they not? If it is *abominable* to be homosexual - then torture can be justified, right?

There is something fascinating here - in that - no one wants to own what the far right is about - in terms of how they would structure society. At least it is fascinating to me :-) why not own your values? If you think that knocking a kid around turns him into a good person - why not own that [I'm not talking to you personally - just the universal *you*]

If you think that the way to *teach* jihadists to become more tolerant and peaceful is to bomb their lands and kill their people - why not own that?

If your knee-jerk response is - let's show them... why not own that.

Now let me pose you a question. Is there any situation in which you believe a violent response is justified, even necessary. And if you think there is even one, then don't you believe there are situations where people of goodwill might disagree about exactly where the line is?

Yes, I do think there are situations in which violence is justified. And I think that people of goodwill can disagree about lots of things. What I don't agree with is wanting to impose your views on others. In other words - whether the far left or the far right - both want to legislate their values - it seesm to me. Both want to force the whole country to embrace the violence and cruelty that they justify.

I'm confused now. This doesn't work? I mean all of those movies (i.e. The Bourne Identify, Conspiracy Theory)that show how those with evil intent use psychiatric medications and painful situations to create mindless and/or crazy killers.

If you think that the way to *teach* jihadists to become more tolerant and peaceful is to bomb their lands and kill their people - why not own that?

Umm...first of all the the guy who's been bombing the crap out of peaceful goat-herders in Afghanistan and Pakistan isn't some "hard right" blog commenter, it's good ol' Barry Soetero. You know, the lightworker, the guy who was supposed to stop the oceans from rising. The one who they talk about like a dog. That one.

Second, no one, not even Obama, is dumb enough to believe that bombing jihadists makes them more tolerant and peaceful. The point is to kill them before they kill us.

Geeze.....sunsong is such a tool and not even a very sharp one at that.

I guess I haven't noticed your bright thougts. I'll sure be looking for one, though. Let's see - perhaps they will be about how much you hate those who have a different pesepctive than you and how important it is that we kill as many Muslims as possible?

But conservatives, like the ones on this board, have a realistic view of human nature. That is why our policies tend to work, they are based in an accurate view of human nature.

LOL - that's funny. Did you predict the economic debacle in Sept '08?

BTW, what is your iew of human nature - how would you define it?

And as to you question:

Pelosi is far left. DeMint is far right, imo.

The center would be equi-distant from all possiblity. I don't know of anyone who is there but I imagine certain independents tend to be more middle of the road - liking some things about each side and disliking others.. It seems to me that, in order to get elected - especially in the House - one needs to please the party loyalists who tend to be more extreme.

DeMint is the icon of the violence-loving "hard right?" Do you have some examples of DeMint advocating violence and cruelty just for the sake of it? (You have already agreed that in certain circumstances violence is appropriate, so we're obviously not talking about those.)

sunsong is in lockstep with other lefties, who consider disagreement with their views immoral or even evil, and therefore assign disagreeable beliefs to these Deniers of Truth as proof of their nefarious nature.

My goodness, no! I am not well versed in economics. But conservatives DID predict the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and asked for more oversight as far back as 05 and the Progressives such as Maxine Waters (currently under ethics investigation) and Barney Frank denied any risk and urged looser lending standards.

It is on youtube. It is all over youtube. Freddie and Fannie caused and popped the housing bubble that led to the worldwide recession and the current tight credit and continued housing glut.

Not that I don't trust you to look it up, but here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA

Oops, that is from 2004.

Here is more footage, dating back to 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo&feature=related

Any more questions? Or can you agree to let the grownups run things for awhile. Call it change.

Are you for or against the war on Afghanistan? And if you are, why?...

There is no war on Afghanistan. It takes a twisted soul to believe we are there for the purpose of punishing the people of that land. We are there defending the place against brutal 8th century fanatics--who did and would again rule with a level of cruelty unbounded by Western standards. True, it is not only humanitarian desires that put us there--an attack that killed 3,000 Americans emanated from there and it would have been foolhardy to do nothing to prevent further attacks from that quarter.

Do you think that punitive measures enhance society?If you mean punishing criminals by putting them in prison, then yes I think this prevents and deters crime. It would be a cruel and brutal society were there not some mechanism for maintaining order.

DeMint is the icon of the violence-loving "hard right?" Do you have some examples of DeMint advocating violence and cruelty just for the sake of it? (You have already agreed that in certain circumstances violence is appropriate, so we're obviously not talking about those.)

What do you mean "violence and cruelty just for the sake of it?" Do you mean like going to war when it is not truly necessary? Do you mean calling people names? Do you mean trying to ban same-sex marriage? What do you mean?

DeMint advocates that all illegals be deported. That is cruel. DeMint suggested in 2004 that gay people not be allowed to teach in public school. That is cruel. He also advocated that single mothers who live with their boyfriends not be allowed to teach school. That is cruel. DeMint is *for* war with Afghanistan - probably with Iran, too.

Do you disagree that DeMint is far right? I notice you didn't disagree that Pelosi is far left. Do you think DeMint is middle of the road? I'm interested. Sometimes it's difficult for people to see the failings of their own side - especially if they are invested in that party.

Second, no one, not even Obama, is dumb enough to believe that bombing jihadists makes them more tolerant and peaceful. The point is to kill them before they kill us.

Oh, well, isn't that brilliant. So are you going kill all Muslims? All billion or so of them? Are you just going to kill those in Afghanistan? There will still be millions of Muslims who want to kill us if you limit your war to Afghanistan. Are you planning to go to war in Somalia? What about Yemen? Iran? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? There are Muslims here in the USA who want to kill us. What do you plan to do about that?

And for Freem and the ladies, when did you stop beating your children?

Well, I applaud this kind of cruelty. Violence, war and cruelty improve society. So I never stopped. Still am, now, as I type. It's difficult, but doable if you're committed. After that, I'm sending them to a shrink to be zapped a while. Good times.

No, the question is what do you mean by it as you are the one making the charge.

And it seems that you mean it to include anything you disagree with or saying things that offend. I think that that definition is over-broad.

One could just as easily say that any government policy designed to redistribute wealth is cruel because it's done at gunpoint and results in prison or even death if not complied with. Or that most of these policies are cruel because they actual result in lower standards of living and so hurt the poor.

But, similarly, that would result in a pretty silly and over-broad definition of "violence" or "cruelty."

Oh, I don't know, Freem. If you've ever been starving and just barely scraping by and then been socked with a tax that's going to people who get as much money as you only without actually working for it, it can seem pretty damn cruel (if not what you'd call violent).

You added that on - why? what did you mean? If there is a *reason* you agree with for cruelty - then you're fine with it. But if it is just for the sake of it then that's too much for you? What did you mean. Why did you add that on?

A quick trip to dictionary.com says cruel means:

Willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others

Enjoying the pain or distress of others

Causing or marked by great pain or distress

Rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe

Everything I have mentioned fits those.

You didn't say where you would place DeMint on a political spectrum.

Nor do you acknowledge the number of posts advocating war here.

Do you think all illegals should be deported? Do you think gay marriage should be banned? Do you think it kind of makes sense that a gay man would receive electric shock in order to attempt to be what the far right considers *normal*? Do you think gays should not be *openly* gay?

"Do you disagree that DeMint is far right?"Oh my goodness, you need to get out more. DeMint is a conservative, you need to go to Austria to find real Nazi groups that actually get votes, or isolationist white supremacists to find the far right idiots.

In terms of the left you do not have to go as far given President Obama's cabinet which contained admitted communists and such. Pelosi is a piker compared to those guys like Ayers, people who blew stuff up.

So what did you think of the videos? You didn't watch them because you are not interested in truth and facts, just drama and attention. So you have had all of mine you will have unless and until you demonstrate the ability to have a discussion.

Oh I'm just sorry this thread has (to me) gotten off track by this violence thing.

To answer the questions (I am a Dem):

Do you think all illegals should be deported? All? Would be difficult, but possibly yes. I really favor cracking down on letting illegals in and employers hiring them.

Do you think gay marriage should be banned? Yes.

Do you think it kind of makes sense that a gay man would receive electric shock in order to attempt to be what the far right considers *normal*? No, no, no!! This is awful and barbaric, but ECT is still practiced (in a "different form" but still in existence, as are strong anti psychotic meds). But no, that was awful and I'm sick for the man, but at least he had the sense to stop it and get himself together on his own. And leave.

Do you think gays should not be *openly* gay? Gays probably should be openly gay unless they are in a very very oppressive place.

This story resonates with me on so many levels. Repressed homosexuality is very common in the South and the damage it does is huge.

This story resonates with me on so many levels. Repressed homosexuality is very common in the South and the damage it does is huge.

Too bad you chose the cruel option of banning gay marriage. To say that marriage is a basic right - as the Supreme Court has done - and also to say that gays should be banned from marrying - is to deny them equal rights. Treating gays as less than does do harm. It also harms the one who holds the prejudice - but they generally can't see it.

Do you think all illegals should be deported? All? Would be difficult, but possibly yes. I really favor cracking down on letting illegals in and employers hiring them.

I agree about securing the border and going after employers who hire illegals. However, I think it would be cruel to deport all illegals. Giving them some kind of means to get right with the law would be kinder.

Why is it too bad? Marriage is between a man and a woman. I think a gay couple should have more expanded rights, yes. But I'm not in favor of them marrying. My reasons: again, marriage is for a man and a woman. Two, I have not seen or known many gay male couples who are faithful to each other. Three, I couldn't deal with the drama. This issue has been argued one thousand times more cogently by others on different entries. This is not the time or the place.

We are at fault for not securing the border. That's our responsiblity if we don't want folks just coming over. That doesn't justify deportation.

Interesting. If someone were to break into your house, would it be wrong to forcibly remove them? Or would you just let them hang out up in your spare room because after all, it was your fault for not securing the house well enough in the first place?

ugh..another althouse comment thread hijacked by some self-important bore. how about a break for a nice 'rest in peace' for glenn hadix ? (..and maybe some soul-searching over the nasty 'treatment' he received at the hands of people who think sexual orientation can be burned out of a person.)okay, now you can return to the WAY off-subject bickering (you're stupid..no you're stupid)....ugh.

You never answered about how many Muslims you want to kill. 10 million, 100 million all billion of them? How many?

As many as it takes to make America secure and not one more.

If you left your house and doors open and took a walk - would you be surprised if someone who needed food and shelter entered?

Yeah, I would be both surprised and dismayed but that's not the question.

The question is what do you, sunsong, do with this hungry shelterless person who just entered the home that you so carelessly left unlocked? Do you call the cops and have him removed from the premises or do you let him stick around?

Remember, you left the door unlocked. Is it really fair to make the homeless guy leave?

The question is what do you, sunsong, do with this hungry shelterless person who just entered the home that you so carelessly left unlocked?

I take responsiblity for leaving the house open. Then I ask him to leave. If he needs an address or transportation to a shelter I offer it or help him get it.

Your analogy works up to a point - but not fully. There is a difference between one person's home and a nation's border. It is the responsiblity of the feds to secure the border. They haven't done it for how many years.

If every single day I left my house open while I was at work and then got all bent out of shape - every single day - when some homeless guy came in - that would be more analogous to our border situation, imo.

So you've defined anything you disagree with as cruelty/violence? And then your argument is that people you disagree with like violence and are cruel? Do I have that right?

It's all about your feelings about what's mean and what's nice?

The "for the sake of it" is necessary because you have already conceded that violence is sometimes necessary.

You write that you're in favor of cracking down on employers but not in favor of deporting people. The latter, you write, is cruel while the former is not. Is it not cruel to work the system so that the poor, hungry man who crosses the border illegally, enduring great danger to his person, arrives only to find that no one will give him a job? Some people would call that very cruel. They might believe that you are the sort of person who loves cruelty and violence.

The truth is that sane people generally have very similar goals for a good society. They want people to succeed, to live well, to be happy, to rest in safety, to act ethically, to have access to opportunity, etc. The disagreements are over how to achieve that.

It is not a political party in general that decides to be kind, and it is not a political party in general that decides to be violent. It is individual people.

In the end, it is always individual people.

Do not group all of them in the same judgement. One person can make an entire group look ridiculous, if not handled right away.

I'm a human rights activist, dedicated to helping children, and I love doing what I can to make the world aesthetic and safe. And I have a tendency to vote right-wing—as I normally see that THAT is the group trying to put more personal responsibility in, and make the world safe for individuals to be themselves. Personal opinion, it's fine if you think otherwise, but the point of the matter is: I completely disagree with pointless violence, and harm against others with no regards to human rights.

So you've defined anything you disagree with as cruelty/violence? And then your argument is that people you disagree with like violence and are cruel? Do I have that right?

It's all about your feelings about what's mean and what's nice?

The "for the sake of it" is necessary because you have already conceded that violence is sometimes necessary.

Well you're nothing if not clever. You're attempting to make this all about me - while here you are just a really great guy who is being unfairly maligned - being associated with cruel extremists.

The problem is - I used a dictionary.com definition of cruel. I didn't make one up. And because I acknowledge there are possible occasions where violence is necessary - you then decide to dramatize your argument by adding for the sake of it. I would suggest that the number of times that violence is truly needed is so small as to never come up for most people. It's just not an absolute. However, because it's not an absolute does not mean that cruelty and violence are a means to solve problems - like what to do about Islamists. And it does not mean - deport all the illegals or ban gay marriage or shame and condemn anyone who does not live according to your religious values.

It seems to me that you, and your commrades here, like to dish it out - but you are like Obama - in that you can't take criticism. The fact is that the far right *is* cruel and seems to be enamored with war and violence. Who do you think it is that supports the war in Afghanistan? A majority are aginst it now. Why is it that the far right believes that war will make us safe? What is it about brutality that brings safety?

I am always amused by right wingers who put down *emotion* :-) The fact is that thought and emotion are linked - just as will and imagination are. If you can't feel emotion - you can't think either, and vice versa. In fact, if you can't feel - you can't love.

I will still be on the lookout in future threads for you and anyone from the right here to denounce cruelty and violence - hatred and condemnation, punitive measures etc and I will be delighted if I ever see posts from the far right encouraging kindness, compassion, caring, peace, respect for those who disagree etc.

It seems to me I recall learning somewhere that the Founders had terrific disagreements - quite intense. Yet they also respected each other. In other words - even though they vehemently disagreed - they also managed to respect one another.

It is not a political party in general that decides to be kind, and it is not a political party in general that decides to be violent. It is individual people.

In the end, it is always individual people.

I see what you're saying but I don't agree :-) When a party advocates for war or for deporting all illegals or for banning gay marriage - or whatever example you want to use - they are all agreeing with that. So it's not just an individual decision.

I do agree with you that most acts of kindness are individual and beautiful. And I appreciate your reminder about that.

My point here is not even about the GOP - it is about the hard right - the extremists. Those who are so fanatical they consciously harm others and want to impose their views on everyone. And I think the hard left is just as bad - though in a different way. It is the extremes and going to extremes that is the problem, imo.

I think it is neat that you work to help others and that you see the right as being more in line with individuality.

The idea that this man ever thought he needed electric shock in order to try and be heterosexual really angers me. I was in the mood today to get into it. Most of the time I'm not - but I was today :-) The far right strike me as the kind of people who would applaud what happened to this man.

There's an especially sad thing about that YouTube clip, which is that if you look at the still that's shown before you hit play, it's a shot of three people, and all three of them have now died before their time. There's Glenn Shadix in the background. In the foreground, there is Kim Walker, who died of a brain tumor in 2001, when she was 32. In between them is Jeremy Applegate, who commited suicide in 2000, when he was 34.

Absolutely. They are 'breaking into the country'. They are stealing, through illegally working under the table and without paying taxes, jobs from citizens. They are stealing and appropriating to themselves benefits that they have NOT paid for through taxes. They are using the services and facilities that were constructed for the use of citizens.

Yes. They are thiefs who have snuck into the country and who are stealing from us every single day.

When does responsibility come into play? Who is *responsible* for securing the border?

Good question. The responsibility is that of the Government. One of the FEW things that they are chartered to do for the citizens. It hasn't been secured for generations so I fault both the Democrats AND the Repbulicans.

You do know what happens when there is a vacuum? When the Government abrogates and refuses (as Obama is doing) to fulfill it's chartered duties......some one else will.

Oh my - and this is, I suppose, your *example* of what being grownup looks like - lol I think you'd better go back to the drawing board and try again. Being enamored with hatred and violence is NOT adult. It is usually children who are mean and want to hurt others. I assume I am supposed to be upset in some way or humiliated by your:

he/she/it?

I do appreciate you taking time to highlight my point here on this thread: that the far right like cruelty, hatred punishing, shaming, being quick to judge against others - knee-jerk in their advocacy and justification of war and violence. It's too bad freeman has conveniently disappeared :-)

Where is the compassion, love, forgiveness, peace, understanding etc that he claimed you were really about?

Yes. They are thiefs who have snuck into the country and who are stealing from us every single day.

Again, I thank you for being an example of my point here. Illegals are thieves? - lol - stealing from us? I'm sure there's some reason you hate Abraham Maslow :-) - he is famous for the hierarchy of needs and explains that when security needs aren't met - people do not focus on higher needs. Illegals do not focus on what you value ( what you think they *should* value) - they are focused on getting here and making money. But don't let that interfere with your hatred of illegals. Hate away if it turns you on. If a starving person stole a loaf of bread - I suppose you would want the book thrown at them?

BTW, how can they break in when there is no wall to break? They are given a free pathway into the United States - by both parties - as you admit. It seems to me they even have water stations along the way - so they don't go too long without water.

You do know what happens when there is a vacuum? When the Government abrogates and refuses (as Obama is doing) to fulfill it's chartered duties......some one else will.

You *assumed* they took something - which fits with the far right's predilection to judge against *the other* - one is different from them. I am not surprised you would assume that :-)

Right. So when you wrote the whole part about "needed food and shelter" any casual observer could see that it was only the shelter part that you were referring to, and not that you're changing your story now to cast me in a bad light, and try to achieve some semblance of coherence.

Your smileys fool no one. You're an angry person bent on coloring all those who disagree with you as wicked.

Wake up there! I am not the one advocating killing people, throwing people in jail, deporting people, going to war in Iran and who knows where else staying at war with Afghanistan etc. That's your group :-)

would you be surprised if someone who needed food and shelter entered?"

It says entered not entered and helped themselves to stuff. But, as I say, I'm not surprised you would assume the worst of an illegal :-) They are, afterall, *different* from you. And demonizing people makes it more *logical* to hate them and go after them, doesn't it?

would you be surprised if someone who needed food and shelter entered?"

It says entered not entered and helped themselves to stuff.

If they entered, then they are quite literally "taking shelter". Also, what would be the point of entering a residence in need of food and shelter and then finding food there, not eating it. Why not just stay outside?

Wake up there! I am not the one advocating killing people, throwing people in jail, deporting people, going to war in Iran and who knows where else staying at war with Afghanistan etc. That's your group :-)

My group? My group is the Founding Fathers. Neither the "side" is up to living to their ideals. But they did advocate killing people, throwing them in jail, and probably deporting them. They didn't advocate war with Iran and Afghanistan, though one of them was very aggressive toward the peaceful Muslim peoples of Libya.

But now that I've established that I'm not on the right at all, I sometimes do advocate violence. I think a lot of people need to be slapped out of their stupor.

Here is a comment from sunsong (8/7/10 3:32 PM) on the earlier thread she's citing:"The far left and the far right meet again, this time on the justification of violence. Just depends on your definition of *atrocity* or *marriage* or whatever moral it is you want to impose on others."

Here's a reminder of sunsong's philosophy as stated on this thread (9/8/10 3:32 PM):"Yes, I do think there are situations in which violence is justified."